NOONE VARADARAJAN CHETTY Vs. VUTUKURI KANAKIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct.

(2.) Secondary evidence of the contents of the Income-tax return is admissible, according to the contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner, under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act. I am however unable to agree that the Income-tax Officer is "not subject to the process of the Court". On the contrary he is subject to every process of the Court, but under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, the Court cannot require him to produce before it any of the documents mentioned in that section. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act lays a prohibition on the Court; it does not confer any exemption on the Income-tax Officer.

(3.) There is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.